Jonathan Caulkins on mj legalization

Calm and lucid, as usual. Tom Ashbrook of WBUR (Boston Public Radio) asks sensible questions, and actually listens to the answers.

Author: Mark Kleiman

Professor of Public Policy at the NYU Marron Institute for Urban Management and editor of the Journal of Drug Policy Analysis. Teaches about the methods of policy analysis about drug abuse control and crime control policy, working out the implications of two principles: that swift and certain sanctions don't have to be severe to be effective, and that well-designed threats usually don't have to be carried out.
Books:
Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know (with Jonathan Caulkins and Angela Hawken)
When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment (Princeton, 2009; named one of the "books of the year" by The EconomistAgainst Excess: Drug Policy for Results (Basic, 1993)
Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control (Greenwood, 1989)
UCLA HomepageCurriculum Vitae
Contact: Markarkleiman-at-gmail.com
View all posts by Mark Kleiman

I’ve noticed this too in KC. Articles are popping up faster today than they have been recently, but comment posting usually comes back with a gateway timeout and I have to go refresh the article page to see if the comment posted or not (so far it always has). I’ve noticed a few double-posts in comments lately as well, probably due to folks assuming their first attempt didn’t post when they got the timeout response. Probably not Franken-storm related either, it’s been slow since well before the storm hit.

Caulkins says that Washington/Colorado with its “free market” model wouldn’t have to worry about preemption because MMJ hasn’t been preempted. He doesn’t specify whether this is because MMJ is indeed legally safe from preemption or that it just hasn’t been tried.

He also brings up the issue of pot tourism and leaves it at that i.e. he doesn’t bring up the notion of those states becoming the supply hub for the entire US or large parts of it, as posited on this blog. Does he not share that notion?

Ashbrook does convey hints of his biases in his questions: 1)when he posits that upon legalization, there will be *gosh* an organized Industry, with Manufacturers and Processors..etc 2)when he queries Caulkins on the basis by which to evaluate policy: public health or “Freedom!”. That sarcasm was hardly veiled.

DuPont seems disingenuously certain when asserting that pot/alcohol aren’t substitutes, and also seems to imply that the higher rates of alcohol/tobacco use among pot users is causally related.

Kampia was disingenuous in evading the slippery slope effect for legalization of other drugs if pot’s legalized, and also for evading/denying increase in pot use post legalization.